A state appeals court has upheld the conviction of a North Plainfield man who exposed himself to two 12-year-old girls in 2010.Brendan Kuty/NJ.com

SOMERVILLE — A state appeals court has upheld the lewdness conviction of a North Plainfield man who exposed himself to two young girls in 2010.

The appellate judges rejected an argument made by Lamonte Calloway, 31, that certain evidence should have been impermissible at his 2011 trial, according to the Sept. 17 decision. Calloway was found guilty of lewdness, but acquitted of child endangerment.

Calloway was sentenced in April 2012 to four years of probation with credit for time served while awaiting trial, but soon afterward, violated his probation, court records show.

When Calloway failed to appear, a Superior Court judge in September 2012 issued a warrant for his arrest and he remains a fugitive, court records show.

The case against Calloway began on May 26, 2010 when his 24-year-old neighbor saw him in the yard of his home, “with his pants down, smiling,” according to the appellate decision.

That neighbor’s 12-year-old sister later informed investigators about similar incidents earlier that year involving Calloway, the decision states.

On roughly five to six occasions, the girl was walking home with her friend, who was between 12 and 13, when she heard Calloway making noises to attract their attention as they went past his home, the decision states. On two of those instances, the girl saw Calloway “standing inside the side screen door of his home, naked,” the decision states.

In another instance, the girl was in her bedroom with her adult cousin when the cousin saw Calloway “standing outside his neighboring home masturbating,” the decision states.

Calloway denied the allegations that he intentionally exposed himself or made noises to attract attention to himself, the decision states. He said he occasionally urinated outside when the bathroom inside his home was occupied, the decision states.

He argued that the 24-year-old neighbor’s and the cousin’s testimonies were impermissible, but the judges disagreed, the decision states.